A Question for Christians

[Lestat]

Wow! You said what I have to say better than I ever could have said it.

[David Sklansky]

"it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent""

What is wrong with this tactic? It is common in math proofs. If the opponent is on firm ground he can't be trapped.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, any answer is unintelligible.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner.

[DougShrapnel]

1. Harry will become mostly George, and George will become mostly Harry.

2. Souls do not only reside in bodies. But transend bodies. Bodies are the tool of the Soul. The new souls will be an intermix. The brain will have the high ground and win most battles, but Harry may find that he will gain a love of Bach that he didn't have before.

3. Confusing to write an answer to this. So I'll take the easy way out. There is no hell, or heaven. Merely seperate, although touching, groups of souls.

All my answers are made up and likely wrong to at least some extent, and it's possible, nah likely, entirely wrong.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, within more "Christian" teachings Christ was not human

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, within more "Christian" teachings Christ was not human

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, this was pretty clueless.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, within more "Christian" teachings Christ was not human

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, this was pretty clueless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's funny how Christians don't agree on a LOT of core tenets: the biggest being how people are "saved". It's pretty important, I'd think, to figure out how people are "saved"... but various denominations believe different things. I tend to think the Calvinists have the most rational interpretation of Scripture on this issue. But, lots of Arminianist denominations completely disagree.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, within more "Christian" teachings Christ was not human

[/ QUOTE ]
?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, this was pretty clueless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, ok...

An individual born w/o the conception between man and woman, who can walk on water, make a couple loaves of bread and fish feed thousands, heal lepers and the blind by touch, be crucified, die and return to life.... Sound like the description of any human you've ever met?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you sell quite short many Christians and incorrectly elevate many atheists. Much philosophical and scientific thought was produced by individuals who held to Christian beliefs. Holding a belief in something spiritual does not preclude thought, reasoning or science. And simply chucking the concept of something divine and becoming an atheist does not suddenly make one a reasoning, or rational, individual.

I find it most interesting that the most insulting posts come from the "rational" scientific posters. I don't see that religionists, as you termed them, act any more together than the scientifists ( not-a-word ). They just tend to be answering the same questions.

What is the core problem with Lestat's "question"? Well, because it can't be answered in a one-answer-is-right fashion. From the "belief" in a soul standpoint, I don't know that there is even concensus among Christians -- I've never really thought about the question myself until this thread so I never looked into it. But if the Christians to whom this question is posited answer, "We don't know." Will Lestat accept that? Or will a "We don't know" be seen as proof that Christian belief is false?

I would hazard Lestat's intent to the "We don't know answer" would not be acceptance; but perhaps I am wrong, although the rest of his posts don't seem to show that.

So -- all you non-believers: If we switch brains which man is which? Because one is on death-row and to be executed tomorrow and the other is a free man. So which one dies?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
"it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent""

What is wrong with this tactic? It is common in math proofs. If the opponent is on firm ground he can't be trapped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Math proofs are a significantly different thing than what masquerades here as a philosophical discussion. Lestat did not ask for a "proof", he asked for a statement of belief or interpretation of scripture/teachings.

The tactic I was refering to was the process of laying out a sufficiently vague question while holding back the true complications of the question you really want answered. Then piece-meal doling out the additinal information, restrictions, complications, etc to twist and turn the answers given.

While sometimes fun to do and often successful in discrediting the answerer -- the technique is much less efficient in reaching a reasonable answer or fostering a successfull debate.